Cited by 29Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

How difficult is inference of mammalian causal gene regulatory networks?

Open access
Djordjevic, Djordje, Yang, Andrian, Zadoorian, Armella, Rungrugeecharoen, Kevin, Ho, Joshua W. K.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) play a central role in systems biology, especially in the study of mammalian organ development. One key question remains largely unanswered: Is it possible to infer mammalian causal GRNs using observable gene co-expression patterns alone? We assembled two mouse GRN datasets (embryonic tooth and heart) and matching microarray gene expression profiles to systematically investigate the difficulties of mammalian causal GRN inference. The GRNs were assembled based on > 2,000 pieces of experimental genetic perturbation evidence from manually reading > 150 primary research articles. Each piece of perturbation evidence records the qualitative change of the expression of one gene following knock-down or over-expression of another gene. Our data have thorough annotation of tissue types and embryonic stages, as well as the type of regulation (activation, inhibition and no effect), which uniquely allows us to estimate both sensitivity and specificity of the inference of tissue specific causal GRN edges. Using these unprecedented datasets, we found that gene co-expression does not reliably distinguish true positive from false positive interactions, making inference of GRN in mammalian development very difficult. Nonetheless, if we have expression profiling data from genetic or molecular perturbation experiments, such as gene knock-out or signalling stimulation, it is possible to use the set of differentially expressed genes to recover causal regulatory relationships with good sensitivity and specificity. Our result supports the importance of using perturbation experimental data in causal network reconstruction. Furthermore, we showed that causal gene regulatory relationship can be highly cell type or developmental stage specific, suggesting the importance of employing expression profiles from homogeneous cell populations. This study provides essential datasets and empirical evidence to guide the development of new GRN inference methods for mammalian organ development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0111661

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Methods attempting to derive regulatory networks from co-expression networks alone can only reliably distinguish between true- and false-positive regulatory interactions if perturbation experiment data are used for network construction.

    “The comparison suggests that methods attempting to derive regulatory networks from co-expression networks alone can only reliably distinguish between true- and false-positive regulatory interactions if perturbation experiment data are used for network construction [129].”
  • Regulatory relationships can be highly specific to cell type, tissue, or developmental stage.

    “Furthermore, regulatory relationships can be highly cell-type-, tissue- or developmental-stage-specific [129].”
  • For identifying regulatory relationships, perturbation data are preferable because canonical data cannot distinguish between true and false positives in regulatory relationships.

    “To identify regulatory relationships, perturbation data are preferable, as canonical data cannot distinguish between true and false positives in regulatory relationships [129, 168].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 29

Authors
Djordjevic, D., Yang, A., Zadoorian, A., Rungrugeecharoen, K., & Ho, J. W. K.
Affiliations
Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Ho, Joshua W. K.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-11-04
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e111661
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059953769
Cited by
29
References
37
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
gene regulatory networks, causal network inference, gene co-expression, gene perturbation, sensitivity and specificity, cell type specificity, developmental stage specificity, gene knockout, differentially expressed genes, tissue-specific gene regulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Heart, Myocardium, Tooth, Signal Transduction, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, Mice, Gene Regulatory Networks, Protein Interaction Maps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review